Tag Archives: abortion

In Spanish, the name is, Catolicas por el Derecho a Decidr, a group of Mexican Catholics who believe women in their nation have the right to decide whether or not to have children. They have adopted an unusual position by insisting that abortion is in accordance with the doctrine of the Catholic Church. According to a spokeswoman for the group, “the Catholic Church is influencing legislation to punish abortion without taking in account the exceptions to the punishment of excommunication that Canon 1323 dictates.” Canon 1323 says women under 16 who have an abortion will not be excommunicated if they acted due to physical force nor will they face punishment if they were “coerced by grave fear” of if they “lack the use of reason.”

At the heart of their views is a belief “the church needs to recognize there are different visions and that the faithful have other visions.” There is no question abortion rights have not impacted Mexico in the same manner as it has in European Catholic nations or in the United States. Perhaps, the world has reached a point where alternative visions might contain a future vision.

Cardinal Marc Quellet spoke his mind about the subject of a woman being raped and then becoming pregnant in the ongoing insensitive manner that has become the norm when leaders of the Catholic Church speak about abortion. The Cardinal was asked his views on whether a woman who was raped had the right to an abortion. He responded in the negative and said she had to show “respect for the being in her womb. It is not responsible for what has happened.” His remark unleashed a fury of responses including one from columnist Patrick Lagace who wrote, “we’re all going to die. I hope he(Cardinal Quellet) dies from a long painful illness.” Government officials were quick to distance themselves from the abortion comment.

Cardinal Quellet is arguing the issue of abortion is a “moral” one and it makes no difference how a fetus was conceived because it is life. Those opposing abortion assume an either/or stance which leads to moral arrogance. Certainly, the trauma of rape entitles a woman to decide if she should or should not give birth. Cardinal Quellet argues it is not the fault of the fetus, but does a child wish to enter the world being unwanted? In any moral issue, there exists a gray zone, nothing is either/or–except in churches which claim to know “the truth.”

The ongoing chant of American conservatives is fear of “big government” intruding into the lives of the average citizen. They rant and shout about ‘the government” and demand an end to bureaucrats being able to make decisions concerning the lives of citizens. Apparently, the legislature of Oklahoma, which has a solid conservative majority, does not believe their own words. The state legislature passed a law requiring women seeking an abortion to undergo an intrusive ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the foetus before getting an abortion. Governor Brad Henry, who opposes abortions, vetoed the bill on grounds it does not allow exemptions for rape and incest victims. Conservatives have promised they will override the veto and make their state the proud title of having the strictest anti-abortion laws.

We propose that anyone voting for such a law have something shoved up their rectum and be compelled to listen to a detailed explanation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

It was not the most productive political trip for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who wandered up north to Canada where she proceeded to inform its government and people about her ideas on a variety of topics ranging from abortion to Afghanistan. The Canadian government recently made clear it was withdrawing its forces from Afghanistan by 2011 and Clinton proceeded to urge the government to retain its soldiers in the mountains of that far off land. But, Hillary was not finished. At a meeting to deal with topics of maternal healthcare, she told the assembled leaders, “you cannot have reproductive health and reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortions.” A wise diplomat knows better than to publicly ask a question that will only produce an answer not desired. This is not effective diplomacy.

The reality is more and more world leaders are tired of Afghanistan. How do they support an Afghan government which recently invited Iran President Ahmadinejad to their capital for extended discussions when this goon is assaulting innocent Iranian students in his own streets? Until President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton can control President Karzai, why should anyone remain in Afghanistan?

Foes of abortion are prepared to fight until death or life in order to ensure any health care legislation does not allow women access to abortion as part of their health insurance plan. Of course, most health insurance policies at present allow women to secure funding for abortion, but under proposed legislation before the US Senate such right to funded abortion will disappear. Ten days ago more than 150 bishops and religious leaders issued a declaration denouncing President Obama’s support for the right of women to secure financial assistance for their abortion. At the core of their strategy is rallying the emotional forces opposing abortion to pressure Congress into barring funds for abortions to be part of any new healthcare legislation.

As one who has mixed feelings regarding abortion, I believe women alone have the right to make the decision about whether or not to have an abortion. No government or religious body has the right to compel a woman to be forced into any action related to her own body. Reality is that women with money will always be able to secure the necessary funds for an abortion. It is poor women who will be denied the right for an abortion. Isn’t it ironic that so-called religious “leaders” deny for poor women what they know will be granted to middle and upper class women. Isn’t it even more ironic that those who denounce government “telling people what to do about their health” believe government has the right to tell a woman not to have an abortion!

To those living in the early 1960s when Pope John XXIII arrived on the scene of the Catholic Church there was hope and expectation of moving the church into the 20th century. Unfortunately, the happy Pope who was receptive to new ideas and regarded all humans as the children of God, died too soon and those who followed him moved the Church dramatically away from his ideas of reform. We are in the 21st century and leaders of the Catholic Church wanted to deny even the good Catholic Edward Kennedy a Catholic burial. Strange, but I never heard any of these people seeking to deny the vicious Catholic Argentine Army officers who murdered innocent people punishment for their behavior. Can anyone recall the dictator Pinochet being regarded as a bad Catholic. Sorry, he was against gays and against abortion so what if he killed thousands of innocent people, he was on the right side of the Church.

The American Catholic Church will split sometime this century and form their own Catholic Church. One that respects all humans, one that respects the rights of gays and lesbians. As to the issue of abortion, there is no simple right or wrong answer. It is a question caught in the vise of medical research which challenges the definition of what constitutes human life. Is there not room in the Catholic Church for those who sincerely believe in the right of abortion? Wouldn’t the Church be more able to fulfill its mission on Earth if it allowed those who differ to be par;t of the Church and worked to persuade them rather than to punish them?

George Tiller, aged 67, had spent his life as a doctor who tended to the needs of his patients. He believed the women he took care of had the right to make decisions regarding their body, but this is not always a right recognized by many in the Midwest. Tiller was famous for performing late-term abortions and it had resulted in him being shot, his clinic bombed, and other personal attacks by those who believe in the sanctity of life unless you are killing someone you don’t like. A white man entered the lobby of the Reformation Lutheran church in Wichita, pulled out a gun and killed Tiller and he then fled in a blue Ford Tarus. The killer was a brave man who left the scene of his killing rather than waiting to defend himself.

I am certain 2nd Amendment supporters will defend the right to bring a gun into a church just as they defend the right to bring weapons into a school. After all, it says in the Constitution, you have a right to kill abortion defenders, and it definitely says in the 2nd Amendment each American has a right to bring weapons into churches and schools! The hypocrisy of killing in order to end killing is so ridiculous, how can one comment? President Obama has asked those on both sides of the debate to reach out to find common ground. He did not mean shoot the other side.

President Barack Obama spoke with honesty and directness to a Notre Dame graduation ceremony while reaffirming his commitment to the concept of legalized abortion even as demonstrators outside and inside showed their displeasure at his remarks. “No matter how much we may want to fudge ti–indeed while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory– the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.” Anti-abortionists held up their ever present signs which showed slogans like, “thou shalt not kill.” The president urged both sides to avoid demonizing the other and to seek common ground in concern for pregnant women and newborn children.

It is ironic that a Catholic institution in which people declare their opposition by announcing “thou shalt not kill” would allow former president Bush or Don Cheney or Don Rumsfeld to appear without protest event though these men caused the deaths of over 4,000 Americans, the wounding of over 30,000 and the death of thousands of Iraqis. I can only assume a belief in not killing only extends to the birth of a child.

I always find interesting that those opposing abortion so frequently oppose free medical care for young mothers or free day care or decent incomes so they can raise children to be healthy. Their concern for the “child” only extends to the moment when he/she is born, after that they couldn’t care one damn bit.

This is not the time nor place to discuss the pros and cons of abortion, but there are occasions when regardless of one’s views on the subject, a spirit of compassion and understanding should prevail. The Catholic Church is now involved in what is for it a disastrous public relations nightmare stemming from the decision of a Brazilian mother to allow her nine year old girl to have an abortion after she became pregnant. The little girl had been raped and doctors believed it was necessary to perform an abortion to save the life of the girl. Cardinal Giovanni Batista Re, who heads the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, said although the girl was raped by her stepfather, her twins had “the right to live and could not be eliminated.” The mother and doctors who performed the abortion have been excommunicated.

The stepfather who raped the girl will not be excommunicated from the church. Archbishop Jose Cardosa Sobrinho, said the man would not be thrown out of the church because although he committed a “heinous crime,” the Church regards that “abortion, the elimination of an innocent life, was more serious.”

Who are these church leaders? Do they realize by taking this stand they are encouraging many to leave the Catholic Church? Isn’t there any possibility of an exception to a rule?

A woman in Sweden who was mother of two girls asked the doctors to tell her the gender of the fetus and when she was told it was a girl the woman had an abortion. Several months later she came to the medical facility and once again was pregnant. Once again she asked the gender of the fetus and was told it was a girl. She then proceeded to have an abortion. In both cases the fetus was found to be perfectly normal and there was no medical reason to abort its birth. A Swedish doctor has asked for clarification as to the legal and moral obligations doctors must confront when they believe a woman is aborting the baby due to a desire to have a specific gender birth.

This is an interesting test case for people of the medical profession. Do they have a right to interfere with a woman who wants boy or girl babies and is willing to abort for those reasons? An interesting moral dilemma.